Form No. (J) 2
HEADING OF JUDGMENT IN ORIGINAL SUIT
District: Sivasagar
IN THE COURT OF MUNSIFF NO.1, SIVASAGAR
Present: Smti Rashmita Das, AJS.
Munsiff no.1, Sivasagar
Tuesday the 18th day of April, 2012.
Money Suit No. 62 of 2010
Sri Devajeet Dutta………………………………………….…Plaintiff
Versus
1. Sri Mintu Sahu…………………………………………………..Defendant
This suit coming on for final hearing on-09/02/12, 15/03/12
in presence of:–
Advocate for the Plaintiff: Mr B.K Changmai
Mr D.K Gohain
Advocate for the Defendant: Mr Hemanta Konwar.
And having stood for consideration to this day, the Court delivered the following
judgment:–
(JUDGMENT)
1. This is a suit for recovery of money with accrued
interest. The plaintiff’s case is brief is that on 14/07/07 the Def. in
urgent need of money came to the plaintiff and asked him to lend
Rs. 50,000/- promising to repay the same as and when demanded
by the plaintiff. Accordingly the plaintiff gave him Rs. 50,000/-
on the same day by executing and agreement. It was agreed by
the Def. that if the Def. would failed to return the borrowed
1
amount within the period as and when asked and demanded by
the plaintiff, there would be accrued 9% interest in the Capital
amount per month. At the same time the Def. also borrowed Rs.
20,000 on 29/05/07 from the plaintiff in the same terms and
condition fixing interest @10% per month. On 15/05/08 the
plaintiff requested the Def. to repay the loan amount, but Def.
promised to return the same within a very short time. On failure
of the Def. the plaintiff served a legal notice to the Def. on
21/06/08 but the Def. did not pay. There after on 30/07/08 the
plaintiff again approached the Def. but he did not paid anything.
Hence the plaintiff filed the present suit. A complain case was
also filed by the plaintiff against the Def. On 20/02/10 the
plaintiff again demanded the money, but the Def. has not paid
anything up till now.
2. The Def. contested the suit by filing W/S stating that
the suit is not maintainable, there is no cause of action. The Def.
stated that he has not taken any financial help from the plaintiff
and hence there is no question of recovering money from him.
The plaintiff also stated that there is no legal validity of the legal
notice and he has never received any legal notice sent by the
plaintiff and hence prayed to dismiss the suit with cost.
3. Upon pleading of both the parties following issues
have been framed.
ISSUES
i). Whether there is cause of action for the suit?
ii). Whether plaintiff has right to sue?
2
iii). Whether the Def. borrowed the loan from the plaintiff on
14/04/07 an amount of Rs. 50,000+20,0000 on 29/05/07?
iv). Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the relief or relief’s
as prayed for in the suit?
For convenience of discussion I am taking of issues one by one.
Issue no 1. Whether there is any cause of action for the suit?
4. The cause of action means the whole of the material
facts which it is necessary for the plaintiff to alleged and proved in
order to succeed. It is not intended to comprise every fact which
may be proved in evidence. It is well settled that a cause of action
means every facts, which if traverse could be necessary for the
plaintiff to prove in order to support the right to a judgment in his
favour. In other words it is a bundle of facts which taken with the
law applicable to them gives the plaintiff a right to relief against
the tenant. It has no relation to the defence which is set up by the
Def. and cause of action entirely refers to the ground set forth in
the plaint as the cause of action.
5. In view of the above definition of cause of action it
appears that there is cause of action for the suit as the plaintiff
contended in the plaint that the Def. has taken loan amount of Rs.
70,000/-in total on 14/07/07 and 29/05/07 respectively. Hence the
plaintiff has got a case and cause of action arose on and from
15/05/08 and so on as and when the plaintiff demanded the money
from the Def.
3
6. In view of the above I am of the opinion that there is
cause of action for the suit and this issue is accordingly decided in
favour of the plaintiff in affirmative.
Issue no 2: Whether plaintiff has right to sue?
7. In the suit for recovery of money the limitation period
is for three years. The plaintiff contended in his plaint that the Def.
has taken loan on Rs. 50,000/- on 14/04/07 and Rs. 20,000/- on
29/05/07 and the plaintiff filed the suit on 03/03/10. its means the
plaintiff has filed the instant suit within limitation period and hence
he has the right to sue.
8. In view of the above this issue is decided in favour of
the plaintiff in affirmative.
Issue no 3: Whether the Def. borrowed the loan from the
plaintiff on 14/04/07 an amount of Rs. 50,000/+Rs. 20,0000/ on
29/05/07?
9. The plaintiff has filed this suit for recovery of Rs.
70,000/- in total from the Def.
10. In order to establish his case the plaintiff has adduced
the evidence of two witnesses.
11. PW1 that is the plaintiff deposed that at the request of
the Def. he gave Rs. 50,000/- on 14/04/07 by executing and
agreement on the same day. Ext1 is the agreement Ext1(1) is the
signature of the Def. and Ext1(2), Ext1(3), and Ext1(4) are the
respective signatures of the witnesses. The Def. again took loan of
4
Rs. 20,000/-on 29/05/07 from the plaintiff and executed the
agreement dated 29/05/07. Ext2 is the agreement Ext2(1) is the
signature of the Def. and Ext2(2) is the signature of the Def. On
being failed by the Def. to repay the loan amount the plaintiff on
15/05/08 requested him to return the entire loan amount, but the
Def. did not repay the same. He also deposed that the legal notice
was served on the Def. on 21/06/08 and on 30/07/08 he along with
his father requested and demanded the Def. to repay the amount
but the Def. did not pay any heed to him and abused and threatened
him. A complain case against the Def. was registered being CR
case No-210/08 U/S 420, 323,506, 294 IPC on 08/08/08. The
plaintiff again on 20/02/10 demanded the money but the Def. did
not return the same.
12. PW2 Sri Gobinda Sarkar deposed that the Def. had
borrowed the amount of Rs. 50000/+Rs. 20000/- on 14/04/07 and
on 29/05/07 respectively from the plaintiff. It is within his
knowledge that the Def. did not repay the entire loan amount the
plaintiff on repeated demand made by the plaintiff on 15/05/08 and
30/07/08.
13. Perused the Ext1 agreement dated 14/04/07 and also
perused Ext2 the agreement dated 29/05/07. The defendant has
only denied the claim of the Plaintiff and has not adduced any
evidence. After going through the documents and the evidence and
in view of my above discussion I find that Plaintiff has been able
to establish his case.
14. Hence this issue is decided in favour of the Plaintiff.
5
iv). Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the relief or relief’s
as prayed for in the suit?
15. In view of my earlier discussion made in the above
issues I am of the opinion that the Plaintiff is entitled to get relief
as per the order noted below.
ORDER
Plaintiff’s suit is decreed on contest with cost.
The Plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs
50,000/-(Rs Fifty Thousand only)@ 9%
interest and Rs 20,000/-(Rs Twenty Thousand
Only) @ 10% interest and a total of Rs
70,000/-(Rs Seventy Thousand only) from the
Defendant.
Prepare a decree accordingly.
Given under my hand and seal of this court on 18/04/12
Typed and corrected by me
Smti Rashmita Das
Munsiff no 1,SVR
6
A P P E N D I X
Plaintiff’s witnesses
Pw 1Sri Devajeet Dutta………….Plaintiff
Pw 2Sri Gobinda Sarkar…………independent witness.
Exhibits for the Plaintiff
Ext 1 ……………………………Agreement dtd 14/4/07
Ext 2…………………………….Agreement dtd 29/5/07
Defence witnesses
Nil
Exhibits for Defence
Nil
Smti R. Das
Munsiff no 1 , SVR
7
